The model that will come for you will have defensive panels and not be easy to take out. Plus, depending on who's building them and for what purpose, the exterior appearance could be "psychologically troubling" enough that you would have no effective or quick response.

Recently watched a Dr. Jordan B. Peterson video, mostly to confirm the the extent and nature of his jewish propaganda, but he did make one point that stood out to me. Not going to look for the exact quote, but to paraphrase: "Most people have no idea how much their thoughts and decisions are influenced by outside actors."

What is his reason for presenting the jews as so 'benign and beneficial', when the major complaints about them are about their horrific and self-documented efforts to destroy our societies? He's definitely an interesting character. "Most of my friends are jews", he admits.

"Human beings are often controlled by forces beyond their personal understanding."

Speaking of... Have you ever looked up those FDA regulations on how many bug parts are allowed in various types of foods? Depending on where and how you live, that may be the major source of bug (parts) entering your apartment.

At first I was thinking "more bugs with wings", but bug density at that altitude is probably pretty thin. More likely are critters you bring in on shoes, clothing, and supplies. Moving in furniture that's not brand new would establish the initial colonies. Depending on critter type and building layout, some migration from adjacent living spaces is likely.

things can be in "possession" of the state while the "ownership" is retained by the people, just like corporations do not truly "own" stuff but all the things "in possession" of a corporation are owned by its shareholders.

I would accept that technicality, but in real life, the state effectively owns everything within its borders. Citizens are effectively "club members", with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.

the plight of the individual

Individuals are responsible for creating their own plights. No one is 'owed' a plight, especially those who did nothing but suck up resources for the first 10 or 20 years of their membership. Looked at another way, it could be argued that they owe an enormous debt for their very existence. To their direct caregivers, yes, but they're also living on "club grounds" under a provisional exception to their duty to provide value in exchange.

Now, I can see the validity of other forms of living arrangements. Living tribally can work - when the population in a given area is low enough. Then you need no real borders, because resources in the area are sufficient, and replenished faster than they're used up. We unfortunately no longer live in that world. Whole world is sliced and diced, mapped and claimed. There are very few places one can exist without a country membership. Pressure is getting so great that some of the cracks appear to be threatening the whole system. So maybe we will get back to that tribal/alternate way of living, or tech advances will effectively solidify control over the masses à la manière de Brave New World.

I guess I'm arguing for "what is" rather than what should or could be, but maybe I'm blurring the edges a bit.

i do not recognize the state as the owner of anything, the state is just a vehicle representing the individuals

A state that own nothing can't function. At the least, they would almost seem to need paper and pencil, with a desk in a non-borrowed space. Then, how do they get around or contact people? Would they walk to coffee shops to meet people? Then if they write something as a result, they may need a filing cabinet for the papers. Really seems like they would need to own stuff just to function at any level.

Yes, they represent us (or are supposed to, anyway...), so that's why we fund them and give them authority to act in our names and interests.

the individual is the foundation of all ownership rights

Agreed, but without the existence of individuals, ownership and basic human concepts would not exist. Is there another school of thought on this that makes any sense?

Without getting into deep philosophical arguments that I'm sure have been hashed out long ago, individual owners can group together and form governments to represent them, to which they assign part of their assets. Part of that process is making the government like a "super-agent" for the territory within it's borders.

In my view, being born within that territory (legally, by citizens, and etc.) should make you a default member of the association known as "your country". If you fail to abide by its rules and behavioral standards, then the association should have you removed or evicted. Staying within the country is tacit acknowledgement and agreement with the rules. Forming a competing jurisdiction within another jurisdiction seems logically invalid. In a biological sense, that sounds like disease. In a societal sense, it sounds like a demand for whatever level of violence is required to resolve the issue.

many of the smaller nations around the world are peaceful and often prosperous.

Am not impressed by my above argument. It sounds like someone who has never studied government forms, which is what it actually is... Even though I'm failing to properly articulate the argument that country borders should be inviolate, and that members of a country have a duty to protect and defend it, it seems like the only sustainable model. That's more based on just living a long time and paying some attention to other humans. if humans change into something else, then maybe other models would work better.